Skip to main content

About this Show

Hardball With Chris Matthews

News/Business. (2013) (CC)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Virtual Ch. 787 (MSNBC HD)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1920

PIXEL HEIGHT
1080

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Chuck Hagel 12, Us 10, America 9, Wayne Lapierre 8, Marco Rubio 7, John Mccain 6, Washington 6, Rubio 5, Nra 5, Intermezzo 4, Lautenberg 4, Steve Mcmahon 4, Cummings 4, Hagel 4, John Feehery 3, Benghazi 3, D.c. 3, Idaho 2, Mmm 2, Ambien 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  MSNBC    Hardball With Chris Matthews    News/Business.  (2013)  (CC)  

    February 14, 2013
    11:00 - 12:00am PST  

11:00pm
his throato lubio. for the love of god. the number one thing going through marco rubio's mind at this moment, by 2016 won't america want a stooge in the white house? >> by the end i was waiting for him to butt dial his ex. >> i think it was a bold move to duck off camera during the biggest speech of your life. i cannot imagine what he was thinking. ♪ >> is this really that big of a deal? just because it's the only thing that people will ever remember? >> i'm just going to, just going to -- get something to drink here. just so thirsty i can't -- sorry, should have drank something before the show. don't know why i didn't think of that. >> maintaining eye contact with the home viewer and connecting,
11:01pm
connecting with the audience on a human level, you know, makes them overlook your difficulties. just keep the words rolling from your face hole. no one will notice. >> the state of the union rebuttal is most often handed to a rising party star. whose star then, according to tradition, quickly falls. >> good evening, and happy mardi gras. >> the war against chuck hagel, let's play "hardball."
11:02pm
>> good evening, let me start tonight with this, at least for now, defense secretary. republicans have thrown out so many different reasons. it's hard to keep them all straight. it's because hagel hasn't accounted for every single penny he's made and it's because of what he had to say about israel and iran. but it's also because of the white house's response to benghazi, something that has nothing do with chuck hagel, who wasn't even in the government at the time. today, the unprecedented step came to a head. that failed to get the 60 votes needed.
11:03pm
that mob at the gate headed over >> what are republicans really trying to do? nbc's kelly o'donnell is at the capital tonight. let me just tell you this, i'm going to ask you, why are they doing this? why are they holding up a cabinet appointment? >> for some of them, it is about chuck hagel wanting to know more, who were not a part of committee. they just all received. they make it very clear. it's not personal, they say. it is a tool within the rules of the senate. they say the only tool they have to try to extract from the administration information they did not willingingly give. so case in point, there are two things that have happened because they put up this resistance. >> today, they received a letter
11:04pm
and they believed that that is a credit to the white house, that they've now given them that information. they're satisfied, for now, on that. expect more questions, chris u when joan brennan, the cia director nominee comes forward. it's a tool -- >> what do they still want to know about benghazi that can be used for this decision to hold up this confirmation? what do they still want to know? >> they want to know the name of the person that changed the talking points that were circulated and included the description of the video when the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs chair both knew, almost stantly, that it was terrorism. media, while many in the public think this issue is over and done with, that the families
11:05pm
want to know and that they need to have more information so that conduct of any administration will be aware of the power of oversight from the senate. and they think that will change how people react and decisions they will make. that's the argument they laid out. they said it is not personal, but it is a tool to get information. they believe it was successful in getting the hearing and the letter they wanted. >> thank you, kelly o'donnell, for that report. great to have you on tonight. big news breaking. let's go to peter beinart about this. thank you for joining us tonight for some analysis. why do you think -- you're looking at this with a deeper political background on the motivation, what is the motivation of people like lindsey graham? why are they leading the charge to screw the nomination? >> it's because he's petrified he's too moderate to win the republican nomination for senate in 2014 in south carolina, and so he's desperately moving to the right. for a lot of other republicans,
11:06pm
they feel like if they can drag this out longer and longer, that maybe some shoe will drop, there will be some scandal, something they haven't unearthed that will destroy this nomination. in the meantime, we don't have the person who is supposed to be secretary of defense going to a very, very important summit next week in europe because it's being held up on this fishing expedition. >> i was listening to kelly's report there, and it squares with everything i have been able to figure out. but they keep changing the question. first of all, there was legitimate questions on the republican side and by the american people what happened at benghazi, why couldn't we go to the aid of those people, and christopher smith included, who were under attack in real time? now they seem to have gotten the answers to that. there was no material -- no ordnance or outfit able to get there in time. then they went to this other question, why didn't we call up the libyan government and get
11:07pm
them to come and do it? now they're back to arguing about what was said on "meet the press" after the incident. it seems every time the questions are asked, a new round of questions follow them and a new round of questions to the point you have to wonder if they're not simply doing what you think is their prime motivation, playing for time, hoping some shoe will drop. >> i think what needs to be said is they have every right to vote against chuck hagel. what they don't have a right to do is prevent a timely vote on chuck hagel, which is what they're doing by filibustering a nominee for secretary of defense which has never happened. the filibuster is supposed to be something which is very, very rare, and it's supposed to be something difficult to do. to make it the kind of permanent reality as the republican party has done year after year ratcheting up to include senate nominees is outrageous. the president has a right to have a vote on his defense nominee having just won the election. >> you know what's going on i think watching this as a dynamic, from now on in politics, at least on the right and center right, you have to do what the worst people are doing. if anybody goes up and says i'm going to filibuster, if you're not filibustering, you're not on
11:08pm
the right anymore. this is the new litmus test. let's listen to john mccain, who has been on a couple sides of this things. he said a short time ago on fox news this. let's watch. >> they'll probably get the votes when we return from the recess unless something else -- unless another something pops up, and that's doubtful that it will. but to be honest with you, neil, it goes back to there's a lot of ill will towards senator hagel because when he was a republican, he attacked president bush mercilessly, at one point said he was the worst president since herbert hoover, said that the surge was the worst blunder since the vietnam war, which is nonsense, and was very anti his own party, and people don't forget that. >> that seems honest. let's go to senator claire mccaskill who has been tough in dealing on the armed services committee with some of the zealots.
11:09pm
i try to find political motive. why is ted cruz, the new kid on the block, acting so ferociously? why are they doing this to a guy who is a middle-of-the-roader? i don't get it. your thoughts, senator? >> i think it's extremism. i think this is somebody who is on the very edge of the political spectrum, and he thinks he has the right to try to pull everyone over with him, but what was really bad about what happened, chris, was not that he opposed chuck hagel. we can all live with that, although this filibuster is inexcusable, especially in light of the history of this body and what it means, but what he did was he made innuendos and inferences that chuck hagel was a liar and a traitor. now, this is a man when everyone was going to canada or everyone was trying to get a deferral, he stood up and said take me, and he battled valiantly for our
11:10pm
country in war and was decorated. so i think there is a really bright line, that you don't cross that line and impugn someone's patriotism with no evidence. it was absolutely mccarthy-like. >> we have the tape. let's show ted cruz of texas saying that very thing in your committee on armed services. >> we saw with his nomination something truly extraordinary, which is the government of iran formally and publicly praising the nomination of a defense secretary. i would suggest to you that to my knowledge that is unprecedented to see a foreign nation like iran publicly celebrating a nomination. >> you know, i don't often say it and i rarely say it, but there is echoes of joe mccarthy there, strong echoes. your thoughts? how is he supposed to control what the pr agency out there in tehran puts out some day? how does that incriminate him?
11:11pm
>> well, that's exactly what i tried to say to senator inhofe. be careful here. because what if a group that you find abhorrent that doesn't match your values endorses you? does that mean you're cozy with them? and iran is being manipulative here. i think they're trying to cause the president problems. these are people who are playing a political propaganda game, and i will say this for john mccain. even though he drives me crazy sometimes, he did step up yesterday, and he said no one should impugn this man's integrity or his patriotism. i admire john for doing that in the heat of this very inappropriate diatribe by senator cruz and senator inhofe. >> i agree with that so much. let me ask you about the neocon people. it seems like the real ideological people who really despise chuck hagel, not on personal grounds, they think he's too dovish on the middle east, too dovish overall, they're looking for a shoe to drop. is that part of the game here? it's a delaying game, wait a
11:12pm
week, hope something pops against him? >> i'm not really sure what their strategy is here, but i think the american people are onto them. the notion that for the first time in history a newly elected president has his nomination for the secretary of defense filibustered? and by the way, they're not going to change the president's policy by playing these games. >> right. >> they're not going to -- and all they're doing is sending a signal to the rest of the world that we're not united in a bipartisan way around the issue of national security. that is damaging to our national security. and shame on them for doing that. this is not worth it. in this political game that gets played around here, sometimes we lose sight of the goal, and that is the strength of our nation and how we appear to the rest of the world, and this is not a good moment for our country in terms of the united states
11:13pm
senate behavior today. >> senator, i'm wondering here, is this about the president's choice for secretary of defense or is it about the people's choice for president? are they trying to undermine this president? >> i think it's a little of both. i think john mccain was being very honest when he said that, you know, chuck hagel really irritated the members of his party when he was willing to -- with a very independent voice, he was still a republican, he was still conservative, he was still from a very conservative state of nebraska, but he was willing from time to time to speak out against a republican president, against some of the policies that were embraced by the republican party, and i think it really irritated some of them, and i think it was tough for them and especially probably tough for senator mccain when chuck hagel decided not to endorse his old friend for president. when john mccain ran for president, of course, at one point in time chuck hagel and john mccain were the same kind of couple around here that lindsey graham and john mccain are. >> good amigos. >> very close. good friends. >> let's look now at a comment made by your former colleague, richard lugar of indiana. he had this to say about why republicans are obstructing hagel's nomination.
11:14pm
>> senator hagel's main transgression is that he is a republican who has questioned policies that are sacred among most conservative senators. the intensity of opposition that the senator is encountering is grounded in the resentments of some conservatives inside and outside the senate who regard his independent thinking as political blasphemy for which he should not be rewarded. >> senator, you know the senate now. this is your second term. can you read it? is there going to be a vote to try to get cloture to end this filibuster when you come back on monday after this monday? >> well, that's what's so sad about this game. everyone voting today knows that chuck hagel is going to be confirmed. in fact, there are a number of people who have made commitments that they will, in fact, vote for cloture when we return. so this is some kind of grandstanding that goes on.
11:15pm
i'm confident he'll get the votes when we return, and he will take his place as secretary of state. but he is going to miss the nato conference next week, and it sends a signal to the rest of the world that maybe he doesn't have the full support of the american government, which is not a good place for our secretary of defense to be in. >> well, the jackals are in the streets tonight. thank you so much, senator claire mccaskill. and peter beinart, thank you for joining us as well. coming up, the frantic rantings of the nra. citizen lapierre has gotten crazier. he says we need to buy guns, to arm up to protect ourselves from the marauding hispanic gangs. remember the line, this one, from "brokeback mountain," i wish i knew how to quit you. well, republicans just can't quit their cartoon version of president obama as a tyrannical, liberty-hating socialist. how is that working for you guys? and no surprise, the late night comics drank deeply from marco rubio's water bottle. >> don't worry, senator rubio, nobody noticed that you gave a speech.
11:16pm
and finally, let me finish with how the attacks on president obama's choice for secretary of defense are really attacks on the people's choice, the american people's choice for president. and that's what this is about. and this is "hardball," the place for politics. direct rates side by side to find you a great deal, even if it's not with us. [ ding ] oh, that's helpful! well, our company does that, too. actually, we invented that. it's like a sauna in here. helping you save, even if it's not with us -- now, that's progressive! call or click today. no mas pantalones!
11:17pm
because every flake is double-toasted... splashed with sweet honey... and covered in rich double-roasted peanuts. mmm. [ hero ] yummy. [ male announcer ] kellogg's crunchy nut. it's super delicious! well, my good friend new jersey senator frank lautenberg says he's going to retire next year and not seek a sixth term. and that opens the door for cory booker to run for lautenberg's seat. booker has made his intentions very clear, which clearly annoyed the 89-year-old lautenberg. while booker is the highest profile democrat looking to succeed lautenberg, other democrats have signaled their intentions to run as well. with lautenberg retiring, it's an end of an era. he's the last world war ii veteran in the u.s. senate. we'll be right back.
11:18pm
11:19pm
welcome back to "hardball." citizen lapierre who is -- is he this screamer of fire in the theater?
11:20pm
wayne lapierre. watch him go to work. he just sent out a mass manifesto linking a lifeline from every spooked out crowd in the country from one to the other asking them all to arm themselves while there's still time, arm themselves. afraid of looting after a storm? get a gun. upset by illegal immigration? get a gun. don't like crime or drugs, get yourself a damn gun, man. that's the wayne lapierre message today. worried about the debt crisis? worried about the chaos coming afterwards -- you know the drill -- get a gun. arm yourself, america. it's not just a right, it's a duty. it's not just about uncle sam who is coming to get you in one of those black helicopters, it's that mob at the gate headed over the rio grande as we speak and right for your house up in idaho, right as we speak. lock and load. do it now. there's not much time. they're coming for you. you think this is crazy? well, this is wayne lapierre talking, the head of the nra, and what does that tell you? it tells you about a new division in america between the
11:21pm
confident people who think he's nuts and the scared, the really scared, who are listening to him right now. joining me is u.s. congressman elijah cummings of maryland and former pennsylvania governor ed rendell. governor, i want to start with you. this line, you have run against the nra in terms of re-election as governor. i have never heard this kind of talk. this talk is crazy. it's reign of terror talk like from the french revolution. get your gun. you're the one next. if you have any gripe in this country about illegal immigration, about the debt crisis, you better be armed and ready to fight. >> well, chris, not only is it crazy stuff, and it really is outright, flat out committable stuff, but worse, it has heavy racial overtones, and i'm sure congressman cummings is going to talk about that. so much so that i think it's incumbent upon the republican party leaders, such as they are, to stand up and disavow wayne lapierre now, disavow the statement, say it's against everything we believe in. we do not scare people with
11:22pm
images of latino gangs and looting by looters after a storm, things that conjure up nothing but racial overtones. i think if the republican party wants to do anything in the future in this country in the next five to ten years, they better disavow this and disavow it now like president bush did when the nra went crazy a few years back. >> congressman cummings, here it is. a piece titled, "stand and fight." the nra's wayne lapierre worked all the levers of the fear machine. during the second obama term, additional threats are growing, latin american drug gangs have invaded every significant city of size in the united states. then he used hurricane sandy to stoke more fear. we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. looters ran wild in south brooklyn. there was no food, water, or electricity.
11:23pm
if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark or you might not get home at all. and then lapierre wrapped it up with a defiant call to arms. quote, we will not surrender, we will not appease, we will buy more guns than ever. your reading of that. who is he talking to? >> i think he's talking to people who will be accepting of a fear. he basically is trying to put fear into people's hearts, and if you read it carefully, you would think that it was an advertisement for gun manufacturers. the fact is that we've got -- basically i see it as a distraction. we've got to concentrate on sandy hook. we've got to concentrate on what's going on in our inner cities and folks getting guns that should not have them. and i think that -- i think what mr. lapierre is doing is, to be frank with you, he's shooting himself in the foot and shooting
11:24pm
the nra in the foot because in talking to some of my colleagues on the republican side today, a lot of them are embarrassed and upset about it, but they are afraid to speak out about it. but one thing that they are definitely not in agreement with, and i think some are going to see this as cover to stand up against the nra. you know, we have common sense legislation against trafficking which is a bipartisan bill. >> i know you do. good for you. >> and scott rigell, who is one of our co-sponsors, is an nra member. >> that's true. i went back and looked at the republican platform last time around. it was all pro-gun. on every aspect, every front, not a single word challenging the nra. i have yet -- i accept the fact that, congressman, you have colleagues and good friends that are willing to speak candidly with you as they clearly have. they weren't going on television saying anything against lapierre. >> i agree. >> governor, he looks like he's
11:25pm
the boss. it's like when rush limbaugh speaks and everybody hides in a cave because they're afraid of rush limbaugh. this guy, no matter what he said, if it has a racial tinge, they don't call him out on it, nobody seems to do it on the republican side. >> and it's mind-boggling to me, chris, because the polls are absolutely clear, an overwhelming number of americans disagree with wayne lapierre on this stuff, and where are the moderate republicans? where are the jim gerlachs and charlie dents and charlie fitzpatricks in the philadelphia suburbs? do they think this is acceptable stuff? are they going to stand and hide behind, you know, a curtain and not come out and say stuff? what will they do when it comes time to cast their votes? will they vote to eliminate high capacity magazines? are they going to vote to eliminate assault rifles? will they vote to make universal background checks the law of the land?
11:26pm
are they going to vote for that gun trafficking bill that congressman cummings is talking about? it's time that we call those guys on the carpet and said, who are you for? us or the nra? >> well, they're talking now with their silence. lapierre even called into question what would happen with the economic fear we all have in this country about, you know, budget stops and debt ceilings and all that stuff. he said leading this country to financial ruin right now, he talked about, and warned even when these days of chaos come afterwards, you better be armed about it. nobody knows if or when the fiscal collapse will come. but if the country is broke, there's likely to be not enough money to pay for police protection, and the american people know it. when wayne lapierre testified before congress, he emphasized this fear, that people have got to protect themselves from marauding mobs and the government might not be able to do the job. let's listen to him on that point again. >> i also think though that what people all over the country fear today is being abandoned by their government. if a tornado hits, if a hurricane hits, if a riot
11:27pm
occurs, that they're going to be out there alone, and the only way they're going to protect themselves in the cold, in the dark, when they're vulnerable, is with a five arm. >> you know, congressman, what he's really appealing to here, if you have studied the groups like survivalist groups and posse comitatus that live up in the hills of idaho, you know them all, he wants everybody in america to start acting like a survivalist. you have to be in some barricade situation with lots of guns to protect yourself against minorities, against illegal immigrants, against the government. you got a lot of enemies out there, and it may be your neighbor trying to get a loaf of bread from your kitchen. you may have to shoot him. >> basically, he's trying to paint this doomsday scenario. i think lapierre -- i don't even think he's in touch with his own membership when 82% are saying they believe in comprehensive background checks, and 87% are saying they truly believe that there should not be -- criminals should not have guns. he's clearly out of tune and again -- i'm convinced that this
11:28pm
is going to work against -- >> when is that going to start? remember back george bush, sr. back when he was ex-president, he was a good man about this, when lapierre put out a letter about calling federal agents, fbi agents, jack-booted thugs, he said i'm quitting. i don't hear the sound of republicans quitting because of wayne lapierre's craziness. i haven't heard it yet. have you heard of anybody quitting the nra? >> i have not heard anybody quitting, but i will say that meehan, patrick meehan out of pennsylvania, is a co-sponsor of our bill and hopefully -- and we've gotten five co-sponsors from the republican side. and hopefully we'll get even more, and maybe, just maybe, that will cause others to stand up, and then when you hear the words of lapierre, and everybody ought to read what he wrote, by the way. i think the people would distance themselves more and more from him.
11:29pm
>> problem is -- >> chris -- >> meehan came out for your trafficking bill last night, as he should. he's a co-sponsor. i understand that's a good thing to do, but i tried to get him on assault weapons, i tried to get him on magazines. he won't do it even in suburban and delaware county. last thought, governor. >> you know, that's the key. congressman cummings, can you tell everybody, are the pat meehans of the world going to vote a discharge petition if speaker boehner will not allow these things to be voted on on the floor of the house, and that's what the president said, they deserve a vote. will the pat meehans of the world, those republicans, vote discharge petition to get it to the floor? >> comprehensive bill, i don't think so. i have listened to them. and -- but on this vote, maybe. trafficking bill, maybe. but again, i don't want -- if we can agree on something, i want us to get those things done. things we don't agree on, we'll have to deal with them another day. >> thank you. >> the sad part is you end up
11:30pm
doing nothing, which is sad. >> i agree. that's one counter. i want to smoke these guys out. thank you, elijah cummings and governor rendell. up next, it was only a matter of time. the late night comics take on marco rubio's water gulp. you will see that the rest of your life, he will. and this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night
11:31pm
when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines,
11:32pm
has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪
11:33pm
back to "hardball." we're in the "sideshow." we knew it was coming. the late night comedy reaction to this. >> nothing has frustrated me more than false choices like the one the president laid out tonight. >> and now the late night rebuttal. >> what a nice plug for poland spring, huh? you cannot buy that kind of product placement. at least i hope you can't buy it, but in washington who knows. it would have been less awkward
11:34pm
had he been wearing one of these on his head during the speech. >> don't worry, senator rubio, nobody noticed -- that you gave a speech. and i cannot imagine what he was thinking, jimmy. do we have any footage of what he was thinking? >> it will create -- and false choices like the one the president laid out tonight. [ applause ] >> it's made for comedy. rubio has decided the best reaction to the whole thing is to embrace it apparently. his super pac, reclaim america, is now selling this marco rubio water bottle.
11:35pm
i don't think it's going to work because you only get one reputation in this country, and this guy is now the thirsty one. why do republicans keep trotting out that strawman version of president obama, the tyrannical socialist who wants to raise your taxes and take away your gun? maybe it's because they've had so much trouble beating the real guy. and that's ahead. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.
11:36pm
11:37pm
11:38pm
11:39pm
welcome back to "hardball." while the republicans are facing their own internal battles, establishments versus tea parties, outsiders versus beltway types, who are the republicans up against? the liberal barack obama who wants to raise your taxes and quash free enterprise or the guy we saw this week talking about the middle class? well, take a guess. marco rubio's rebuttal speech attacked the leftist president, and last night jon stewart had some fun with him. >> our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity. but president obama, he believes it's the cause of our problems. i hope the president will abandon his obsession with raising taxes. instead of playing politics with medicare, when is the president going to offer his detailed plan to save it?
11:40pm
tonight would have been a good time for him to do it. >> yes. instead of attacking capitalism and obsessing about taxes and not offering a medicare plan, why didn't he just go out there last night and say something about medicare? something, what would that sound like? >> on medicare i'm prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan simpson/bowles commission. >> i see the problem. once again rather than responding to actual obama, republicans are stuck responding to the fictional image of obama that they've created, the same boilerplate republican talking points but just with a better backstory. >> i've got the "hardball" strategists to debate that question. democrat steve mcmahon and republican john feehery. you first, feehery. you're laughing. jon stewart said it better than i have, that basically you're attacking a strawman, a guy who wants to take away everybody's
11:41pm
guns, he wants to tax everybody to the hilt, a left wing bad guy. whereas obama comes in and most americans say point by point we're with him. how can both be true? >> well, listen, i think when the president talks about medicare, he says one thing and he does another. and i think at the end of the day if we're going to get any deal on medicare, he's actually got to not just make the proposals and then take them back. he's actually got to stick with them. and i think that what he has a habit of doing is talking out of both sides of his mouth about any of this entitlement reform. >> is he a left wing tyrannical socialist or not? yes or no? >> i think he governs from the left. i think he's a populist progressive who governs from the left, yes. i think that's right. >> is he tyrannical? is he a socialist? >> i don't think he's tyrannical, and i doubt he's a socialist. >> thank you. then you recognize reality. >> that's kind of my deal. >> john usually recognizes reality. >> he's not going to play this game. he's throwing the ball out and saying, you guys play that game.
11:42pm
he's not going to defend that strawman tactic. >> it's a mirage. it turns out that running against a mirage out there in the desert makes you thirsty and you need to -- >> okay. you guys are cruel. you're a pr guy. a good sense of that word, steve mcmahon. i say you only get one reputation. i'm still paying for thrill up my leg. you do these things. you do something out of the ordinary, and it doesn't go away. is he stuck with that? >> i worked for howard dean, a guy that i love -- >> and what do people remember about howard dean? >> that's what they remember about him, standing on the stage in iowa.
11:43pm
>> screaming. >> his grandmother says you get one chance to make a first impression. marco rubio has made his one impression. it's a long, hard road back. >> this thirsty head having to stop national television and get a drink. is that going to be one of the things that becomes a cartoon factor in his life whether he likes it or not? >> it depends how he handles it. i think these responses are always terrible. i think bobby jindal -- >> thank you. >> i don't know why rubio went for it. i think if you do that, you're putting yourself up, and you really have to clear a high bar. >> i'm with you. >> will he be typified by this? he has a long career ahead of him. i think he's a very, very smart guy. i think he's got a great story. these are the types of things that leave a lasting impression as steve said, and it's going to be how he handles it next week, and if he's able to poke fun at himself, people will remember him for his sense of humor and not for his water drinking. >> we know he has a great consultant, todd harris. >> that's not fair. if he put that bottle ten feet from him, he's crazy. on a more dastardly note, paul broun touted his name calling of the president. he's bragging about being extreme. as a member of the house of representatives for the last few
11:44pm
years, i have fought tooth and nail against president obama's agenda at every turn. i was the first member of congress to call him a socialist who embraces marxist/leninist policies like government control of health care and redistribution of wealth. well, there you have somebody on the fringe out there, john feehery, bragging about how extreme his language was. >> i think what broun did was he had a fund-raising letter, and in those fund-raising letters, as you know, you have the most explosive language because that gets you the biggest money. now, do i think that paul broun -- i think he's going to have a difficult primary. i think tom price is going to run against him, and i think there are some other folks who will run against him. but is a pretty conservative state, so it might work for him. we'll see. >> what happened to the hastert rules, you're not supposed to do anything unless most republicans support it. unless most republicans believe
11:45pm
the president is a tyrannical socialist, why do these people not stick with the hastert rule? >> with fund-raising letters you say some of the most obnoxious things. i guarantee you when steve mcmahon was drafting those letters for howard dean, he was saying some obnoxious things, too. >> no, no, no, no, no. >> come on, steve. >> i was going to give you an easy one. i'm going to be nice to you again tonight. what's the smart game in the republican party? is it the jindal, the bobby jindal/chris christie game of attacking the party from the outside or is it the inside players like rubio and ryan saying we're doing basically the right stuff, we just got to refine it. what's the smart position? outside attacking in or inside defending and refining? >> well, i will put it this way. if you're in washington, d.c., you're defined by opposing the president. if you're outside of washington, d.c., you're defined by governing. bobby jindal and chris christie and mike pence and sam brownback are all governing, and i think that's a better way to refine and refrain the party than an oppositional party which you necessarily have to do within the confines of washington, d.c. >> here is a guy that grew up inside washington, worked in the leadership of the republican party, the speaker's office like i did, and saying the best way
11:46pm
to fix the party is not be there, but be outside in the country. >> that's right. and to be outside attacking washington. now, it's interesting because marco rubio is trying to be both, and he actually has the ability to be both because he's only been there for a couple years. >> why the flop sweat? why is he so nervous? >> i think that's a pretty big moment -- >> no, you have seen him give national speeches on the convention floor, he's been fantastic -- do you have an answer why he was so nervous and sweaty? >> i don't think he was nervous. he was tired. he had just given an 18-minute response earlier, two minutes before, and speaking 35 minutes straight is pretty tough for someone. i think he was tired. i think he was really thirsty. >> it wasn't flop sweat. everybody else thinks flop sweat. thank you, steve mcmahon. and you're being loyal, john feehery. the debate continues, gentlemen, even after we're off the air, and you can take part. visit our blog at hardballblog.msnbc.com. or find us on facebook at facebook.com/hardball.
11:47pm
thank you. democrats want to defeat, of face it with puffs facial tissues. puffs has air-fluffed pillows for 40% more cushiony thickness. face every day with puffs softness.
11:48pm
this reduced sodium soup says it may help lower cholesterol, how does it work? you just have to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. democrats want to defeat, of course, mitch mcconnell of kentucky, the guy who from day one vowed to make president obama, as we all know notoriously, a one-term president. well, some national democrats think their best chance to beat mcconnell may be with actress ashley judd. judd, a kentucky native, has not decided whether to run or not, but polls show she's
11:49pm
competitive. for that we check the "hardball" scoreboard. according to a poll by the republican firm harper, mitch mcconnell has a nine-point lead on ashley judd, 49%/40%. not a big lead for a high profile senator against a political newcomer. we'll be right back.
11:50pm
11:51pm
>> we're back. it's been decades, of course, since this country has taken a really hard look at poverty in america. but for millions of americans, many of them children, hunger is
11:52pm
a reality day-to-day. >> i think it's really brave of all of you to be talking to us about you are the. it. but is it something that you feel comfortable talking about? >> why should we have to struggle. if we need it to survive, why can't we just get it when we need it? >> how often are you thinking about food? >> usually every single day because your stomach would tie up in knots because you're so hungry. >> savanah is teaming up with the group, feeding america. samantha joins us from boss ton. it was in 1961 that "the other america" was written. where are we at in terms of that? kids being hungry? >> reporter: it's one of the
11:53pm
shocking things about the great reception. and, still, we see the fall out from it, chris. it's not just the very, very poor, who, as you all know, have always been with us. but family who is have one parent, sometimes both parents have lost the job or people being underemployed, not having the quality of job they had before. when i talked to these kids, just to be clear about it, they're not starving, it's not that they go days without eating, it's that they don't have enough. they're not full. a lot of these kids told me i just don't eat breakfast. that school lunch is the first meal they get. and sometimes the schools rotate the meal. they're not really getting their first meal until much later in the day. i talked to a little birl that says she and her mom, they go shopping at the beginning of the month. and by the end of the month, they are just scrimping by. i think what was most shocking to me is that it's not that stereotypical face of poverty that i think a lot of us have. but that it's families who are the working poor, who may have
11:54pm
jobs, but, still, struggle. and i think that's what we're trying to raise awareness about. >> here's more from the school kids you sat down with, savanah, let's watch. >> the stroout is is that there isn't always a full meal put on my table. >> you will go to the fridge and there will be nothing there. >> i used to be scared if any other kid found out that i didn't have food or anything or i was por poor, that they would make fun of me. >> how did you get them to talk? it sounds somewhat embarrassing when you're surrounded by middle class kids who don't have that reality facing them 1234. >> yeah, these kids were really preetty courageous. some of them talked about how they don't like to talk about it because it is embarrassing. or one little boy told me i don't want to bring it up because i don't want the other kids to think i'm asking for their food.
11:55pm
all of them, when they heard what we were doing with the ad council and putting them together with a commercial, a psa, they wanted to be a part of the solution. you know what really struck me? they all wanted to hep kids who had less than they did. when we taped these interviews, it was not that long after sandy. and some of these kids said i want to share my food with people who may have less than i do. >> let's look at the psa. let's watch it, the result of your hard work, savannah. >> an we're off. >> you got plans? >> you bet. >> 50 million americans struggle with hunger. but we can do something about it. >> excuse me. >> what's going on? >> please join me in helping put food on their tables. together, we can feed america. >> you guys get going. i'm going to get the plates. >> plates? >> sav aurks nnah, i was impressed by that. i have to tell you, i do know about poverty. it's the worst case scenario. what you've found is pretty
11:56pm
close to bad, but not the worst. and that's a reality that we didn't know about. >> yeah, the psa is designed to make people think about it. this is the land of parenty. a lot of us have the ability to give and there are a lot of people in need. and it's not the people that you always think of. sometimes it's your frebd and it's your neighbor. the orange tables are simply to help people visualize. this great need, 1 in 6 children is hungry, 50 million americans is hungry. it's so easy to donate to your food bank. there are great programs that we talked to. a lot of them belonged to this backpack program so that on fridays, they get sent home with a backpack full of food. a lot of kids told us it makes all the difference. it's one of those things where the smallest effort can really make a difference. >> thank you so much. when we return, let me finish with the attacks that don't seem to stop on chuck hagel and how they're really an
11:57pm
attack against president obama. you're watching "hardball," the t when youake up in theiddle ofhe night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported.
11:58pm
abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪ because every flake is double-toasted... splashed with sweet honey... and covered in rich double-roasted peanuts. mmm. [ hero ] yummy. [ male announcer ] kellogg's crunchy nut. it's super delicious!
11:59pm